that is from the data from our city comptroller's office. there has also been considerations from our open space committee. lincoln park's golf course is -- we have a small nine-hole golf course in my district as well. my hope is that we can look at ways to improve access for low income use and others that was brought up -- and other issues the were brought up yesterday. when we look at sharp aprk, there are great opportunities to improve other facilities as well and provide greater access for young people to take up sports and recreational activities. also, the national golf foundation notes that regarding staff from sharp park two

other golf courses and result in more revenue. lastly, studies that were cited in the hearing yesterday show that many people like recreational activities but golf has a certain universe of people that are -- that take it up as a hobby or sport. there are many other types of recreation and different options that supervisor avalos has put forward. hopefully, we will look at how golf would be one option, but also many other options like hiking and biking and other activities that many more people can access as well. i will be supportive of this legislation. i hope it is done in a way that we help improve our other golf courses, not just the ones in my district but the ones throughout the city. thank you hit president chiu: supervisor avalos, you wanted to make a motion to amend the entire document. i want to take that as a motion to amend.

seconded by supervisor campos. any discussion on that? supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i did not support this amendment in committee for the following reasons -- the language that is being added for supervisor avalos' comments yesterday it are designed to be made in our mental review. the legislation is in front of you without the amendment and necessitates environmental review. supervisor avalos made clear that we need to adopt these amendments in order for the legislation to not be deemed a project. that is why this language is being added. look at the language. it is supposed to said -- it does say, "an option of closing the golf course." implicit is it -- implicit in this is that the national parks association might enter into

agreement with us, keeping the golf course open. news to me and anyone who has followed this issue. i would love to ask any supporters who are here if they have never once heard of the golden gate national recreation area who will continue this -- who will take this property and continue the golf course. if you have any evidence that it will take this and keep the golf course, show us. we had six hours of public testimony yesterday. did any of that testimony come out? none. did any supporters get up and say, please vote for this. please allow golden gate recreational area to take the land and keep the golf course? nope. all of the legislative background and -- the legislative background here makes crystal clear the intent of handling -- of handing this over is to close the golf course. i oppose the amendment because

the amendment is fiction. there is no option of leaving the golf course open if we hand it over. that is never going to happen. you said today, including the nine-hole option, please show me some evidence anywhere that the golden gate national recreation area would consider that. it would be nice if we could've talked to the golden gate national recreation area. for six hours, no one was here. we are about to approve an ordinance to hand over hundreds of acres of land and they do not even bother to show up? that was somewhat telling to me. to the amendment, i would say, do not vote for fiction. all you are doing is voting for supervisor avalos' comments when he introduced them yesterday in committee to evade ceqa. that is the sole intent to this ordinance.

then bill will say, this is no longer a project. if we vote it down, the ordinance is real. it achieves what supervisor avalos and his supervisors wanted it to achieve. a real discussion about golf. you cannot do that until there is ceqa analysis. let's be honest about what we are trying to do. to the amendment, i have other comments on the issue, but to the amendment, i would vote no. president chiu: is there any more discussion on the amendment? there are a number of people on the roster, by assuming they're not going to speak on the amendment that itself -- on the amendment itself. supervisor avalos: i was told it did not require an environmental review it. i was subsequently told that it did. i wanted to make sure we had a process that would help us go forward with negotiations talking about options.

i have every intent of making sure that we do whenever environmental review that we need to do in terms of moving four. if we go to the point of approving changes at sharp park that include closure, that is something i expect to happen. it is a question about whether we can open a door or a discussion with the national parks service, which heretofore has not thought it worthy of having a discussion. we have to look at this legislation before us within the four corners of the legislation of itself. there is an option which is in legislation that is one that allows us to look at several different alternatives for how sharp park can be programmed and to have a discussion with the national parks service.

we do not know how they will go on. perhaps the national parks service might have other things that want to address in those discussions and when they do happen. president chiu: any other discussion on the amendment? roll-call vote. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. clerk calvillo: there are seven aye's and four no's. president chiu: motion passes. supervisor wiener: thank you. i supported this because i believe it should rise or fall

not based on ceqa and based on the merits. on the merits, i will be voting against this legislation. despite a lot of the things the we are hearing and despite the amendments and other proposed amendments that we may hear today, the purpose of this legislation is clear -- to put us firmly on a path towards eventually having an agreement where -- an agreement with the ggnra. i have a lot of respect for them, but we tend to have a serious policy disagreement with them right now relating to recreational access, particularly relating to dogs. that dispute is not anywhere near resolved. ggnra is still going through

their process and we have a serious dispute right here and right now as the city of county and san francisco with the ggnra. i do not feel comfortable putting us on a path, even if it is a non-binding half, to give even more land to the control of the ggnra. i do not want to consider doing that until we have resolve our dispute with them carry it as a result, i will be voting no today. president chiu: i want to thank all of the advocates who have been working on this issue a writ for a number of years, i think supervisor avalos for his advocacy and supervisor mirkarimi for his advocacy before that. this has been a long and complicated conversation. sharp park has been a beloved space and golf course three we need to be careful with how we manage a scarce open space. that being said, i do share the

vision presented by the legislation that would allow us to protect the open space needs, to protect endangered species, and recreational needs we all share. we all recognize there are numerous obstacles, not the least of which is funding. that being said, i do plan to support this ordinance in part because i think it allows us to review the many options that would otherwise not be reviewed in. that being said, i would like to offer an amendment to allow for the continuation of a conversation that the rec and park department has been having with san mateo county. i think we should allow for that to continue. it has been continuing in good faith. so that we can 10 -- we can consider all options at the time. there is nothing in this order and i would preclude the general manager from entering into negotiations without the third parties from the least.

subject to the restriction on new leases and so forth, in this agreement. my memo also states that any such agreement should be subject to the approval of the board of supervisors so it is clear that we could consider this if it turns out that that conversation is fruitful. with that, i would like to offer that amendment. supervisor campos: is there a second? seconded by supervisor avalos. is there any comment on that amendment? supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i thank supervisor chu for trying to thread the needle here, but not quite. just missed. rec and park can continue to have the discussion with san mateo county. after listening to the comments of supervisor avalos yesterday, your amendment does not change the thrust of the legislation. san mateo county and san

francisco could still have those discussions with or without your language. that is not the problem. the problem is, san francisco and san mateo county would be prohibited from entering into a contract, not into negotiations, actually fulfilling the contract until the nps and the city of san francisco have completely finished all of the vetting that needs to happen under this legislation. that is my concern. what this does -- i have spoken to some advocates on the other side of this who are really due respect and trust. where this is coming from, i truly believe it is the feeling that the no golf option is like a seesaw. the intent, i suppose, is to even things out. as i read the legislation, we are just shifting the seesaw. now the no golf often takes party.

if it is the only thing that can be considered until all of it has been fully vetted out and it works or it doesn't, then we could consider the golf option. i think your tilting the seesaw to the extreme where some of the advocates believe it is on the other side right now. supervisor campos: any other comments on the motion to amend? president chiu. president chiu: i would reiterate the plain language which says there is nothing in this ordinance that prevents the general manager from entering into negotiations. if there is an agreement that is agreed upon, it is subject to the approval of this board. we can take up an agreement at a future time. i want to make it clear that we can parallel track all these things. what has been frustrating for many folks who have cared about division laid out in this legislation is lack of progress in that direction. that is what i'm trying to tend to with this amendment. supervisor campos: supervisor

elsbernd area -- supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: refer back to section b and that is my problem. it is very clear that discussions with the nps must be complete the finalized. we must complete wrap of all discussions before we can enter into contracts with anybody else. that is the hang up. president chiu: 147 concerned about is that there has been a lot of focus on discussions between san mateo county and the department, which i appreciate. there are many close to believe that those discussions have been happening in part to -- and have been prioritized over discussions that have other options. there is a difference of opinion on this. we will leave it at that. supervisor campos: can we have a roll call on the amendment? supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye.

supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. clerk calvillo: here are seven aye's and four no's. supervisor campos: the amendment passes. supervisor avalos: i want to reiterate that was mentioned that we were giving land to the ggnra. that is not the case with this ordinance. we are operating sharp park under a joint management agreement with the national parks service. it is possible to have a disagreement or dispute with the national parks service on one area and be ok with another. the national parks service is a

huge organization. it manages parts even outside of the boundaries of alaska and elsewhere. it is a huge department within our federal government. lots of things you can agree and disagree with. going into negotiations, if they ever happened, about how dolls will be allowed access on the sharp park land, if we ever get to that. there are lost to ways that we can go into decision making with the national parks service. we should not preclude what we have with the national parks service against all others. president chiu: supervisor campos. supervisor campos: it has been a very good discussion. one thing that i would say is that i do believe the fact that we disagree with the ggnra with respect to one item does not mean we cannot do business with

them on a different item. i want to make it clear that by supporting this measure that we are in no way saying that we are ok with the ggnra should there be such an agreement. that we support their approach with respect to the access to recreational space by dogs. that is something that, if we get to that point, we will have an opportunity to address that issue. many of us here have a disagreement on how the ggnra has approached that subject matter. for me, the main concern that i have and why will be supporting this item is the financial constraints that the department has. the fact is, we have limited resources. we are not want to have all of the money we want to fund all of the recreation activities that we want to see funded.

it is important to explore different options, different possibilities. that is all the milly how i read the language of this resolution, that it does not necessarily mean that there will be one specific outcome but it allows us to pursue and export a possibility. i think that it is appropriate for us. which is why i will be supporting this. president chiu: supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i want to respond to supervisor avalos. i understand the national park service is a large organization. as i understand it, the ggnra's views about dog access is not a novelist. it reflects a broader attitude within the national parks service organization. i know someone more senior in the parks service. at one point, recently, they

referred to jobs as -- to dogs as "predators." that reflects a certain attitude. when i say i respect the ggnra, that is true in. they are consistent in their views about our management. but i definitely disagree. if this legislation instructed rec and park to evaluate as many different or various management options with different entities and organizations and was neutral about it, that would be one thing. but it does not do that. it directs rec and park in one specific direction to negotiate with one particular entity. it says, if you want to, you can also consider others. it very much focuses on one entity. to me, that sets us on a specific road that i cannot support. thank you. president chiu: any further

discussion? roll call vote. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor wiener: no. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: no. supervisor elsbernd: no. supervisor farrell: no. clerk calvillo: there are six aye's and five no's. president chiu: this ordinance is passed at the first reading. why don't we go to our for clot special order? clerk calvillo: items 34-37 are the special order items for those for the planning commission on september 27 to

install a wireless telecommunications -- telecommunications facility on 2041 larkin street. item 36 is the disapproval. item 37 is the preparation of findings. president chiu: we will be considering whether or not to approve the decision of the planning commission's september 22 conditional youths authorization to install a wireless telecommunications service facility consisting of up to six panel antennas and related equipment in an existing church as part of as -- as part of the at&t communications network within the district at the property located at 2041 larkin street. we will proceed as follows. for up to 10 minutes, with a

presentation by the appellant, to be distributed as you see fit. then the appellate will be followed by up to two minutes by the public in support of the appeal and up to 10 minutes for the planning commission. 10 minutes for the planning sponsor. two minutes for speakers who wish to oppose the appeal. three minutes for a rebuttal by the appellant. any questions or objections to proceeding in this way? hearing none, why don't we start the hearing and open it up. i would like to invite of the appellant. if you could please approached the microphone. you will have of 210 minutes as you see fit. >> thank you very much. my name is kathleen courtney. i am chair of the zoning for the russian hill association. we are asking you to deny the

request of at&t to put 2,000 pounds of commercial grade telecommunications equipment in the steeple and second story of a 100-year-old wooden church at two dozen 41 larkin street. -- 2041 larkin st. this appeal is not about property issues or aesthetic. this appeal is due to the fact that at&t has not demonstrated, which it has to do according to federal and court regulations, it has not demonstrated that there is a significant gap in coverage in this site nor has it demonstrated that this proposed site is the least interesting alternative. taking a cue from supervisor wiener from a couple of years ago, the russian hill community

association engaged two outside experts, independent experts. we just got bulk of their opinions in hand yesterday. their opinions are being circulated. we defined independent as an expert who does not derive significant revenue from the telecommunications industry. you have in front of you and opinion by a core communications who has provided cell phone reviews for clark county among others. they say there is "a dearth of technical information needed to reach a conclusion. mr. spencer offers his opinion but does not support it with technical data. i do not find any mention of or

data supporting technical review of any potential alternative sites to the proposed sites. the second peer review that we engage was with consultants from san bernadine know. the performer views from municipalities from the united states. several in the greater bay area. they reported that "the packet contains insufficient and permission for a peer review. either there is an existence of a meaningful gap or whether or not there could be a less intrusive means." at&t has not submitted information that would allow any of us to take supervisor wiener up on his suggestion to get an independent peer review. i turn this over to my colleague. >> good afternoon. my name is phoenix -- my name

is felix lipman. i live in a condo behind the church. i have been a residence as 1995 in that location. we ask that you reject this application by at&t for the conditional use. at&t has not met the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is a significant coverage gap in the area. that is not the least alternative means available to meet better coverage. in fact, the application in front of you contains insufficient data to demonstrate that at&t is asking you to take the opinions of their paid experts. our own experts concluded there is not enough data on the record. let me show you some specific examples. can we switch --

president chiu: it is coming up right now. it is upside down. >> you cannot read upside down? president chiu: we can, it just takes a little longer. >> this is the map of the area. the circle is the proposed site. the rectangle is the area of improved coverage. that area has magically ground to a much larger area with each subsequent at&t filing. you have got to wonder about that. notice the yellow areas are the least desirable residential areas. the blue areas are the most desirable commercial areas. has at&t offered to find an alternative location? according to their filings, they contacted two sites out of god knows how many blocks and

commercial properties. even that contact was half- hearted with a phone call and not a formal letter. but there is more. notice these three crosses. these are existing micra sites that at&t has in the area. downhill, and downhill, flat. there is no technical discussion as to why these sites cannot be reconfigured to serve as a nearby area. there is a report that says they cannot be serviced as they are. there is no data to say why they cannot be technically reconfigured. there is more. notice this big square. this is a proposed macro site. 250 feet away from this location. no mention of this in the at&t filing. no date as to -- no data as to

why this cannot service the area in question. you have to wonder whether or not at&t met the burden of proof of finding the proposed location. i would say no. let's talk about the proposed coverage gap. upside-down, again. this is the paper that at&t submitted illustrating there is a coverage gap in the area. this little triangle is the site and this is the center of russian help. -- hill. you are looking at the coverage area of the wilderness. there is so much white space, it is incredible. people can use their phones in the middle of russian hill. it defies convention. it defies measurements done by residents walking around every block.